Constitutional law—Implied freedom of communication on government and political matters—Victorian regulations regulating conduct in duck hunting areas during open season—Range of communications protected by implied freedom—Discussion of State issues of government and politics—Test for determining whether law infringes implication—Validity of regulations. High Court—Practice and Procedure—Leave to intervene—Amicus curiae. Constitution of the Commonwealth. Constitution Act 1975 (Vic). Wildlife (Game) (Hunting Season) Regulations 1994 (Vic).
Orders
ORDER
1. Defendants' demurrer allowed.
2. The plaintiff pay the defendants' costs limited to one day of the hearing.
3. The Commonwealth, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia pay to the plaintiff and to the defendants a proportion of the costs incurred by each of them to be taxed as between party and party in relation to the proceedings in the High Court, the proportion to be determined by the taxing officer by reference to the time by which the hearing of the matter before the Full Court was extended by submissions made on behalf of those interveners.
4. The corporations described as "the Fairfax interests", Nationwide News Pty Ltd, the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, and the Seven Network Ltd pay to the plaintiff and to the defendants a proportion of the costs incurred by each of them to be taxed as between party and party in relation to the proceedings in the High Court, the proportion to be determined by the taxing officer by reference to the time by which the hearing of the matter before the Full Court was extended by submissions made on behalf of those interveners.
Decision
BRENNAN CJ
On 7 June 1994 the two personal defendants laid informations charging the plaintiff with summary offences pursuant to the Wildlife (Game)(Hunting Season) Regulations 1994 (Vic)[1] ("the Hunting Season Regulations"). Summonses issued on the informations were returnable before the St Arnaud's Magistrates' Court, Victoria. The plaintiff was charged with three offences of "enter[ing] into or upon a permitted hunting area during prohibited times without holding an authority to do so, in breach of Regulation 5(1)(a) of SR 27 of 1994". The offences allegedly occurred at Donald in the State of Victoria, on 19 and 20 March 1994. Regulation 5 of the Hunting Season Regulations read as follows:
" Entry to permitted hunting area prohibited to certain persons
(1) A person must not enter into or upon any permitted hunting area at any time between the hours of -
(a) 5 pm on Friday, 18 March 1994 and 10.00 am on Saturday, 19 March 1994; or
(b) 5 pm on Saturday, 19 March 1994 and 10.00 am on Sunday, 20 March 1994.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(2) Sub-regulation (1) does not apply to a person who is the holder of a valid game licence authorised for…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Levy v Victoria
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Levy v Victoria [1997] HCA 31
Case
[1997] HCA 31
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Levy v Victoria*, the plaintiff, Mr. Levy, challenged the constitutional validity of certain Victorian regulations that prohibited the use of firearms in designated areas during the open season for duck hunting. The defendants were the State of Victoria and its relevant ministers. The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether these regulations infringed the implied freedom of communication on government and political matters guaranteed by the Commonwealth Constitution.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the *Wildlife (Game) (Hunting Season) Regulations 1994* (Vic) were invalid to the extent that they prohibited conduct that was capable of constituting communication on matters of government and political discussion. The Court had to consider the scope of the implied freedom of political communication and the test for determining whether a law, even if enacted for a legitimate purpose, unduly burdened that freedom.
The High Court, in allowing the defendants' demurrer, found that the regulations did not infringe the implied freedom of political communication. The Court reasoned that the regulations were enacted for the legitimate purpose of ensuring public safety and the humane pursuit of game, and that any incidental restriction on political communication was not of a character that the Constitution prohibits. The implied freedom protects communication on government and political matters, but it does not confer an unfettered right to engage in any conduct, regardless of its impact on public safety or other legitimate government interests. The Court applied the established test for assessing the validity of laws that may burden political communication, requiring the law to be suitable, necessary, and reasonably appropriate in its strict sense.
The High Court ordered that the defendants' demurrer be allowed and that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs limited to one day of the hearing. Further orders were made regarding the costs of various interveners, including the Commonwealth and several states, as well as media corporations, reflecting the extent to which their submissions had extended the hearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Defendants' demurrer allowed.
2. The plaintiff pay the defendants' costs limited to one day of the hearing.
3. The Commonwealth, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia pay to the plaintiff and to the defendants a proportion of the costs incurred by each of them to be taxed as between party and party in relation to the proceedings in the High Court, the proportion to be determined by the taxing officer by reference to the time by which the hearing of the matter before the Full Court was extended by submissions made on behalf of those interveners.
4. The corporations described as "the Fairfax interests", Nationwide News Pty Ltd, the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, and the Seven Network Ltd pay to the plaintiff and to the defendants a proportion of the costs incurred by each of them to be taxed as between party and party in relation to the proceedings in the High Court, the proportion to be determined by the taxing officer by reference to the time by which the hearing of the matter before the Full Court was extended by submissions made on behalf of those interveners.